Talk:RELX/Archives/2016

Suggestion, 22 Jan 2016

Hi - I just have a few more suggestions for updates if possible:

1. In the info panel, please change Industry from "Media" to "Information and Analytics". Also update the Products line - changing "trade fairs" to "exhibitions"

2. End of first paragraph, High Performance Computer Cluster, should say Computing, not Computer. Also, there is a Wikipedia page for HPCC Systems - can that be linked?

3. To give the significant acquisitions and disposals sections some context, would it be possible to add a line at the top of each like this?: "The group's strategy is to acquire relevant datasets and technologies, or businesses in fast-growing geographies" and "The company's strategy has been to evolve print businesses into data services or dispose of print and advertising related operations"

4. Scientific, Technical & Medical section. Please can we show Elsevier's annual sales figure in sterling instead of Euros? (£2bn)

5. Exhibitions section. Can the last line please change to "In 2007, Reed Exhibitions sold its defense exhibitions business"? The current line sounds a bit vague.

Thanks Ryoba (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

All done except 3 which really needs an independent source. Dormskirk (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion, 4 Feb 2016

Hi, The Bookseller has just published an interesting piece that could make a good source for this page. Would it be possible to get this added to the Corporate Social Responsibility section?

"In 2016 Elsevier's not-for-profit Elsevier Foundation committed $1m a year, for 3 years, to programmes encouraging diversity in science, technology and medicine and promoting science research in developing countries."

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/elsevier-foundation-support-diversity-stm-321306

Thanks Ryoba (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion, 11 Mar 2016

Hi, the RELX Annual Report was published this week, so there are a few figures that could do with updating if possible?

Intro section:

1. '...operates in 38 countries' to '...operates in about 40 countries'

2. The US/Europe/ROW split has changed from 50%/29%/21% to '54%/26%/20%' (could lose the word 'About' at the start too)

3. 'Print now generates just 14 per cent' to 'Print now generates just 15 per cent'

4. 'RELX Group's 28,000 employees' to 'RELX Group's 30,000 employees'

History section - 21st century

1. Value of acquisitions should read £300m not dollars

Operations section

Elsevier:

1. 'It publishes 380,000 articles a year' to 'It publishes 400,000 articles a year'

2. Maybe lose the last sentence of that para 'Elsevier had annual sales' as it's a 2014 figure?

Risk & Business:

1. Remove mention of 'Elsevier magazine' as that business is being sold

2. ADAM programme has now traced 155 missing children

Thanks Ryoba (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, many thanks for that. For clarity, could you also change it so that all figures are the adjusted ones? At the moment we have a mix of adjusted and reported values on the page which is a bit confusing. Operating income changes from £1,497 billion to £1,822 billion. Net income changes from £1.0140 billion to £1.275 billion. Also in the financial performance table, the 2015 Adjusted operating profit should be 1,822 and the EPS should be 60.5p (€0.835 - the historical euro figures will need updating too as it now uses a different ratio, but I'm still trying to get hold of those). Thanks Ryoba (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have amended the financial performance table to show adjusted figures but for the infobox I have kept the reported figures to maintain comparability with other companies. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion, 6 April 2016

Hi - I have a few more suggestions for content edits that could hopefully improve the page further (it's looking so much better now than it used to, so thanks everyone for your help so far!)

Operations > Scientific, Technical & Medical section At the end of the ScienceDirect sentence add ', and has 12m monthly users who downloaded 900m articles in 2015' - could be sourced from the Annual Report.

It would be really useful to have an intro paragraph to each of the business areas too, just to give an overview before it continues into the individual products.

eg. Scientific, Technical & Medical: RELX Group's Scientific, Technical & Medical business provides information, analytics and tools that help investors make decisions that improve scientific and healthcare outcomes. It operates under the name of Elsevier and generated revenues in the year to 31 December 2015 of £2bn.

There is an existing paragraph beginning 'Elsevier is the world's largest...' which should really move up to form part of this introduction too - at the moment it is underneath the products.

eg. Risk & Business Analytics: Risk & Business Analytics provides information-based analytics and decision tools that enable customers to evaluate and manage risk.

Thanks Ryoba (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi - Please can you provide independent references as usual, please. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

For the Risk & Business Analytics intro sentence, could you use this?: "Risk & Business Analytics provides decision-making tools which help banks spot money launderers and insurance companies weed out fraudulent claims" - source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d6d9600-dbc7-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe09.html#axzz458CWnpUL - also, "It operates under the name of Elsevier and generated revenues in the year to 31 December 2015 of £2bn." could be sourced here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/avaseave/2016/02/25/elsevier-ceo-using-unique-data-sets-and-analytic-processes-to-maintain-competitive-edge/#69f0c0413578 - thanks Ryoba (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for change revert

Hi. Can someone please look at my comment here regarding undoing a recent change (talk) and see if that's something that can be reverted? Thanks Ryoba (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi - The deleted material did look very technical - I certainly do not think it is appropriate in the lead. Dormskirk (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggested change

The Financial Times has recently published an article (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/93138f3e-87d6-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896.html#axzz3sQIVespz) with some good source material, so I'd like to suggest adding the following paragraph to the Scientific, Technical & Medical section:

"Elsevier is the world’s largest publisher of academic articles with 16 per cent market share, according to the Financial Times. It publishes 380,000 articles a year in about 2,500 journals. Its best-known titles are The Lancet and Cell. In 1995, Forbes Magazine predicted Elsevier would be “the first victim of the internet” as it was disrupted and disintermediated by the world wide web. Twenty years later, in 2015, Elsevier had quadrupled revenues and profits."

also, I'd suggest updating the boycott section that reads "Between 2012 and June 2015, about 15,088 scientists signed The Cost of Knowledge boycott." to say "Between 2012 and November 2015, about 15,391 scientists signed The Cost of Knowledge boycott. In 2014, Elsevier received article submissions from 1.8m authors." again citing the FT article above.

Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. I have dropped the bit "Twenty years later, in 2015, Elsevier had quadrupled revenues and profits" as that did sound a bit over the top (WP:ADVERT). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Great - thanks again. I accept your concerns there, but is there any chance we could give that last statement a bit more balance somehow? Even just adding something along the lines of 'Twenty years later, this prediction hasn't yet come true' Ryoba (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I have added the word "wrongly" in the context of the prediction which should help. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggested change

In the Boycott section, it currently states that "Reed Elsevier has been criticised for the high prices of its journals and services, especially Elsevier and LexisNexis." Can we please remove the mention of LexisNexis from this? Whilst it may be true to say that Elsevier has been criticized for this, it has certainly never been an issue for LexisNexis, and it is incorrect to include them as part of this statement. There is no source for this existing text so I don't know where that claim came from. Thanks Ryoba (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks - I've also just noticed some of this information is duplicated on the page as well. Under the Operations section it says "Between 2012 and June 2015, about 15,088 scientists have signed The Cost of Knowledge boycott." and "Elsevier has been criticized for its high prices; excessive profitability; and limiting the diffusion of innovation by putting scientific research behind paywalls" - that information is then covered again in the Boycott section below. Can these been combined so they only appear in one place? Ryoba (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggested change

Operations > STM section. Can we please add 'In 2016 Elsevier signed a landmark agreement with the UK’s research institutions, granting academics access to globally-published research at costs lower than the industry average.' (https://www.researchinformation.info/news/elsevier-unveils-jisc-collaboration) - this is a major deal so I think it merits inclusion on this page. Thanks Ryoba (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)